We all have known there are strong interests within MLB to eliminate the Oakland A's. And you don't have to look very far to find the interested parties...like right across the Bay for example.

I truly think it is good and constructive that a MLB high official admitted publicly that the A's were and probably still are considered for contraction.

What I fear the most in this entire process is complacency.

This is good reminder that we must go forward with our efforts to get a new ballpark in Oakland. It will be the only thing that will finally weigh in the decision of leave the Oakland A's where they belong.

oakman, I only advocate the new ballpark in Oakland because I truly believe it is the only way to keep the Oakland A's in Oakland.

Like many A's fans, I love the Coli... but I don't believe we should go into denial because of our selfish feelings of knowing we will have to pay more for our tickets... and will not be able to sit at our great seats...

So as I believe in turning a negative into many positives...I think the new A's ballpark in Oakland will be a huge positive and an awesome thing both to the A's and Oakland.

The new Oakland A's ballpark can be a great thing, especially because it is being done right. Fortunately we have a great group of very dedicated civic leaders who have been working very hard to make this a huge success.

We should all rally around these people to help this process along and make this dream a reality.

The A's will have a model baseball ballpark, helping put Oakland on the map as the place to be to watch a ballgame. And the city will gain by receiving more than 3 million people a year, many of who will become Oakland residents. I will be one of them. As near the ballpark as possible.

I for one am very impressed by Zito's comments. I knew the guy was sharp, but he obviously really understands the situation. What a great player rep.

Lil, you're exactly right about this public comment being a positive development. Oakland and Alameda county officials need to see this and understand the stakes involved. I suspect that many of them think contraction or relocation is idle talk and speculation, but this statement from DuPuy puts that idea to rest.

I agree with Lil. What should scare us the most is complacency. We already know that Selig and the Lords want to do their dirty deed. They will do it through the path of least resistance. They have a short list, but also a long list of teams for potential contraction. They'll look at the list and say, "Which cities are going to give us the least amount of grief?", and that's how they'll decide (that and so-called "economic factors"). If they perceive that no one in Oakland cares -- not the owners, not the city fathers and mothers, not the fans -- Oakland will be a prime candidate for contraction. Bet on it.

"'Oakland was on the list initially, sure,' said Bob DuPuy, MLB's president and COO.

"Asked why, DuPuy responded, 'Lack of facilities, local revenue, ticket sales. . . . There are people in the game who feel the Bay Area can't support two teams.'"

Then I have a suggestion: Since the Giants have done SQUAT in the 45 years they've been here, contract them, and let the A's play at PacBell Park. I saw a lot of empty seat in SF for the series with the Phillies.

Re: Zito's comment -- He shows great intelligence. It also sounds like he reads this discussion board.

NEW YORK - It's no longer a secret. The A's were among a list of teams that commissioner Bud Selig considered for contraction last winter.

Robert DuPuy, the president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball and the man second in command to Selig, admitted Thursday that the commissioner's office looked into eliminating the A's.

"When we reviewed (contraction) initially, Oakland was on the initial list. Yes," DuPuy said. The reasons, he said, were "a lack of a facility, a lack of generation of local revenue and a lack of ticket sales. And there are people in the game who feel the Bay Area can't support two major-league teams."

That said, DuPuy also reiterated the fact that the A's no longer remain on that list. Selig told the Bay Area media during spring training that "I don't think we should spend a lot of time worrying about the A's being contracted right now."

"I agree with the commissioner," DuPuy said.

DuPuy also seconded Selig's belief that the A's can survive in Oakland only with a new stadium. He said the fact that the A's are closing in on a new five-year lease extension on their current stadium doesn't change that view. He also said the onus is on the city of Oakland to help get a new stadium built.

"No one is holding a gun to the city's head," he said. "... Eventually communities have to make decisions. We can't subsidize a major-league team just so that a community can continue to have one."

Zito deal close

Left-hander Barry Zito said he expects to formalize a new long-term contract with the team during next week's homestand. Zito said the agreement will be for four years, with an option for a fifth. Should the option be exercised, the deal would link Zito to the A's through 2006. He's eligible for free agency in 2007.

Peña honored

First baseman Carlos Peña was voted the American League Rookie of the Month for April, the first A's player so honored in the two-year history of the award. Peña batted .264 while playing all 26 games. His seven homers led all rookies, and he also had four doubles, seven walks and 16 RBI.

Short hops

Miguel Tejada extended his hitting streak to a career-high 14 straight games. ... Designated hitter Scott Hatteberg had his 10-game hitting streak snapped. ... A's manager Art Howe said second baseman Randy Velarde will rejoin the team today but may not be activated from the disabled list until Saturday or Sunday. Velarde hasn't played for the A's since Opening Night. He was 3-for-5 with three RBI in a rehab game at Triple-A Sacramento on Wednesday and is 7-for-14 in three games with the River Cats. ... First baseman Mario Valdez, who has been on the disabled list all season with a strained left calf, has gone 4-for-18 (.222) in five rehab games, two at Single-A Modesto and three at Sacramento.

Quote from DuPuy: "No one is holding a gun to the city's head," he said. "... Eventually communities have to make decisions. We can't subsidize a major-league team just so that a community can continue to have one."

So no one is holding a gun to our heads, eh? What is it when BS says the A's can't survive in Oakland without a new ballpark?

And how exactly does MLB "subsidize" the A's? I suppose he's referring to revenue sharing.

Yeah, it's probably revenue sharing. I guess in their twisted logic, the A's and Oakland could be doing more to strengthen the "competitive level" (i.e., revenue) of the organization so that they wouldn't have to receive revenue sharing.

I thought revenue sharing was an official policy of MLB, but if the owners are going to bitch and moan about "subsidizing" the A's and other teams, then they should take their revenue sharing, shove it, and leave the A's alone.